Blog

The right to free speech is not the right to say anything I like

The right to free speech is the right to speak freely. It is the right to be unimpeded by any person or organisation when one wishes to say something.

It is not the right for me to say anything I like, whenever I like, to anyone I like, about anyone I like, in any way I like, irrespective of the damage my speech might have and, further, with the collateral right not to give a toss about that damage.

No rights without responsibilities

The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic.

Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr, American jurist [*1]

The invocation of a right brings with it the responsibility to exercise that right humanely and fairly. If it doesn’t do that, we cannot possible argue we live in a civilised society for is not civility, first and foremost, caring for others and possibly even putting their needs above our own?

In what ways should we act responsibly?

Firstly, as Oliver Wendell Holmes observed, shouting fire in a crowded theatre when there is no fire is an act of irresponsibility: people may get hurt, killed even, in the crush and at least a lot of people’s evenings will be spoilt. The responsibility is to not create situations which are likely to harm people for no higher good.

(If someone knew that the crowded theatre was the target of a missile strike which would certainly kill many people, he is entitled—indeed, obliged—to warn those inside.)

Secondly, we have a duty to weigh up the possible offence that what we say might cause. Until we’ve said it, we cannot know if it is offensive, but usually we have a pretty good idea.

If, in a political debate, I repeat an assertion by Simon Jenkins [*2]—

The risk in a politician is not hypocrisy but incompetence. The fact that so few ministers have ever run anything before is far more dangerous to the state than financial or sexual misdemeanour.

—and then proceed to give chapter and verse on the incompetence of George Osborne, Jeremy Hunt, Nicky Morgan et al [transitory UK politicians], however offended they might be, I believe my comments would be entirely justified because the debate presumably offers their adherents a chance to defend these people and I have backed up my assertions with some evidence.

But, if I suggested to a fervent and, shall we say, uncritical muslim that their prophet Mohammed had some failings, and that muslim became upset—and I was fairly sure that he/she would become upset—then I should have weighed all this up before opening my mouth. The point is, how useful was my statement? If it was part of a wider discussion (as above), it would likely be justifiable. If it was a casual remark, however true, but one whose only result was to upset someone unable to answer back, we have to ask whether it was worth saying, whether it was a good idea to say it.

And, the moment the remark becomes an attack, then it is hard to justify in a civilised society.

This subject is strongly linked to…

Noone can make us feel anything

Many people will justify their actions by saying “He/she made me do it”. Even when the actions are positive, such as those inspired by Jesus, I do not buy this.

You only have to spend a little time studying neuroscience before you give up on answering the question, “So, how did he/she make you do it?”

If it were true that someone can make someone else feel or believe or do anything, consider the case of the Danish cartoonists and their less than flattering depiction of the Islamic prophet Mohammed.

At a certain point in time cartoonist A draws an unflattering picture of Mohammed for a magazine (actually, I believe that any depiction of Mohammed will offend muslims).

Sometime later the cartoon is published; after that, it hits the newsagents; after that a muslim buys a copy, looks at it and is duly offended.

In what sense has cartoonist A created a physical situation in which not only was the muslim offended, but he/she had no ability to stop themselves being offended?

If I am not offended by the carton, how come? Is there something in the ink with which the carton is printed that affects the neurons in the brains of all muslims causing them to create a feeling of offence which doesn’t create any offence for most non-muslims? How does the ink interact with the viewer’s prior beliefs? Even if every muslim been preconditioned to find, without further thought, this type of cartoon offensive, it is the preconditioning which disposed the muslim to be offended not the cartoon itself. Just as some people, who have not been preconditioned, will find it offensive.

A christian, viewing the cartoon, might think, “Jolly good, I like that, I agree with it”. So how does that work? In this case, the cartoonist has apparently made the christian hold an entirely opposite view. Did the cartoonist open up the scalps of reader and jiggle with their neurons? Of course not, the idea is preposterous. But is there a better explanation of how a cartoonist might “make” someone bomb innocent civilians?

It really only takes a little thought (though, sadly more thought than many will give it) to see that it is impossible for one person to make another think, feel or do anything.

For once demotic English has it right: the phrase is “to take offence”. We all choose to be offended at some things. The muslim will take offence at the cartoon they see. They will create the offence in their own minds. For this reason, “They made me do it” (for example, blow up other people not connected to the cartoonist or his publisher), is not a defence.

But

Going back to 2, the cartoonist (or at least their editor) has to be adult, mature enough to be able to assess what the impact of the cartoon will be.

I am certainly not saying that Danish periodicals should suppress their cartoonists’ depictions of things they know will offend muslims, or anyone else: I am asking for the editors, in this case, to be clear about what points they want their magazine to be making and to be clear what the most useful ways of doing this are likely to be. After all, who isn’t in favour of doing the most useful thing? If it turns out to be the cartoons, so be it. But history teaches us that, on the whole, people do not change their beliefs and feelings by being browbeaten, by feeling they are being attacked—and that remark applies equally to muslims who insist on imposing their worldview on those who do not share it.

The defence of “free speech” in this context is as pathetic as the defence of “they made me do it”.

We need a more adult, mature conversation in which those over 18 actually have some emotional intelligence around cause and effect.

It is depressing that so many people show an immature approach to this problem.

Postscript

If noone can make us feel anything, it follows that the last four words of Oliver Wendell Holmes (“and causing a panic“)are redundant, as in:

The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic.

The panic is caused by the people in the theatre; it is facilitated by the man shouting who may well have known what the effect of his remarks would be. But the shouting does not cause the panic. The shouting is reprehensible because it takes no account of what the consequences will be.